US Army bans use of privately bought armor - Page 4




 
--
 
April 4th, 2006  
zhjsg
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
Would you please clarify that statement. What post were you talking about and what did you mean? Also, have you read the directive? Not to mention the fact that it is the military. They don't have to give a reason to their troops to do something.
the reasons the army provide is not convincing.
and considering your last words, i think i should keep silence.
April 4th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhjsg
the reasons the army provide is not convincing.
and considering your last words, i think i should keep silence.
By all means. Please present your case.

Chief:

You still have not answered the questions I have asked. It is easy to sit there and say do this and this or that and that should be done. Far harder to actually implement it.

The pros and cons of various armors is not what is in question. What is in question is why the troops can not wear their own armor. That has been answered in a few different ways and with many reasons. I feel most, if not all, are good reasons.

I see you stating opinions of what you remember. I see you retired in 1992. My question is when did you wear the new body armor last? This new armor wasn't around back in 1992. You may be remembering something that is totally different then than now.
April 4th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
The pros and cons of various armors is not what is in question. What is in question is why the troops can not wear their own armor. That has been answered in a few different ways and with many reasons. I feel most, if not all, are good reasons.

I see you stating opinions of what you remember. I see you retired in 1992. My question is when did you wear the new body armor last? This new armor wasn't around back in 1992. You may be remembering something that is totally different then than now.
I wore a 'business suit' a little less than a year ago ... I worked security at a 'power plant' (it was required for alerts). I AM NOT completely against some of the reasons the Army gave (I realize that the military MUST have standardization to stop confusion of SOP on equipment) ... the point I was trying to make was that the Army COULD have supplied their troops with BETTER armor by using some of the new light weight civilian armor ... the price differential is quite inline with the present armor, which is Army standard, and is reputed to be all around better than armor which is supplied by the Army.
--
April 4th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
I wore a 'business suit' a little less than a year ago ... I worked security at a 'power plant' (it was required for alerts). I AM NOT completely against some of the reasons the Army gave (I realize that the military MUST have standardization to stop confusion of SOP on equipment) ... the point I was trying to make was that the Army COULD have supplied their troops with BETTER armor by using some of the new light weight civilian armor ... the price differential is quite inline with the present armor, which is Army standard, and is reputed to be all around better than armor which is supplied by the Army.
The question I have with that type of armor is this:

What kind of protection can it offer?

The armor worn by our guys have throat and groin protection as well as 90%+ torso coverage (when worn and fitted properly).

I envision the armor you talk about as that worn by police officers and other civilian authorities: Has about 80-85% torso coverage. Covers the vitals (heart, lungs, stomach) and that is about all.
April 5th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
I wore a 'business suit' a little less than a year ago ... I worked security at a 'power plant' (it was required for alerts). I AM NOT completely against some of the reasons the Army gave (I realize that the military MUST have standardization to stop confusion of SOP on equipment) ... the point I was trying to make was that the Army COULD have supplied their troops with BETTER armor by using some of the new light weight civilian armor ... the price differential is quite inline with the present armor, which is Army standard, and is reputed to be all around better than armor which is supplied by the Army.
How do you know the prices are inline if you don't know which systems you're refering to? How do know they present the same and/or better protection than the IBA? How do you know they're lighter?

It seems to me, you can't know which is better because you've given no specific systems to compare.

This is exactly the problem we're having, people assuming XYA armor is better without having the knowledge or facts.

No matter how hard you try, you aren't getting above NIJ IIIA without a hard plate, and that's where quite a bit of the weight comes from.
April 5th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
The actual "FLAK" vest weighs in at 16 lbs. and still has 90%+ torso coverage with the groin and neck protectors in. Add in the plates and like PJ said, that is where the weight comes in.
April 5th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
The SOV 2002 is about the best on the civilian market right now, even though our own tests with it have showing varying results. It weighs more than the entire IBA system.
April 5th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Dragon Skin armor meets or exceeds all NIJ standards and even exceeds alot of the mil spec standards for protection
http://www.abfnet.com/modules.php?na...threadid=23621
Notice it does not say anything about meeting or exceeding any of the other milspec standards. . . just specific ones.

Also in this article http://www.defensereview.com/modules...rticle&sid=856 all I see is alot of rhetoric about what if and why did this happen and such.
April 6th, 2006  
Chief Bones
 
 

Topic: Oops ...........


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
The question I have with that type of armor is this:

What kind of protection can it offer?

The armor worn by our guys have throat and groin protection as well as 90%+ torso coverage (when worn and fitted properly).

I envision the armor you talk about as that worn by police officers and other civilian authorities: Has about 80-85% torso coverage. Covers the vitals (heart, lungs, stomach) and that is about all.
I have to agree ... I have been away from military armor for awhile ... it appears that the armor that is now carried MAY be a little bit different than what I was familiar with.

I can ONLY speak for the civilian business suits I wore on my security job and as I remember only covers approx 80-85% of the torso... it WAS the latest that was available and was supposed to be rated better than their nearest competitor. This armor DID have collar and throat and crotch coverage. The chest and back plate was a composite metal impregnated ceramic/steel. It was lighter than the armor I remember from the military - according to the manufacturers, the plates would stop almost all metal jacketed hi-velocity rounds. I have no way of verifying their statements though.

There is a real possibility that we have been arguing apples and oranges ... sorry guys.
May 16th, 2007  
Easy-8
 
 
If they refuse to allow the troops to supply themselves then they had damn well supply them. Thats all I gotta say.